IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .

In article ,
 Krustov  wrote:

> IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .

What is this supposed to mean?

-- 
dorayme

"dorayme"  wrote in message 
news:doraymeRidThis-28D400.10385528022009@news.albasani.net...
: In article ,
: Krustov  wrote:
:
: > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 
.
:
: What is this supposed to mean?
:

He is talking about screen width/resolution, I guess he seems to 
think that most people now have wide screen monitors or are 
prepared to allow just one application full use of the screen, 
what he seems to be miss understanding is that many will have 
swapped their duel monitor set-ups for a single wide screen 
monitor, thus they will still want two or more applications 
running in the monitor.
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

In article <gob37j$d2c$1@news.motzarella.org>,
 "Jerry" <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:

> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
> news:doraymeRidThis-28D400.10385528022009@news.albasani.net...
> : In article ,
> : Krustov  wrote:
> :
> : > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 
> .
> :
> : What is this supposed to mean?
> :
> 
> He is talking about screen width/resolution, I guess he seems to 
> think that most people now have wide screen monitors or are 
> prepared to allow just one application full use of the screen, 
> what he seems to be miss understanding is that many will have 
> swapped their duel monitor set-ups for a single wide screen 
> monitor, thus they will still want two or more applications 
> running in the monitor.

Well, yes, you are right. I know some possible continuations of thought 
after saying what he said. <g> But what exactly? Who is to dump what?

An extra 50 or so pixels can hardly influence best practice website 
design. And in any case, if we are talking modern LCD monitors there are 
a heck of a lot of them at 1600 wide now. So what? There is trend to big 
on the desk and trends to small for the hand and pocket.

-- 
dorayme

"dorayme"  wrote in message 
news:doraymeRidThis-B74B89.21470428022009@news.albasani.net...
<snip>
:
: An extra 50 or so pixels can hardly influence best practice 
website
: design. And in any case, if we are talking modern LCD monitors 
there are
: a heck of a lot of them at 1600 wide now. So what? There is 
trend to big
: on the desk and trends to small for the hand and pocket.
:

IIRC 'Krusty' isn't a fan of flexible layouts....

"Jerry" say after...
>
> "dorayme" wrote after Krustov wrote:
> :
> : > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280
> .
> :
> : What is this supposed to mean?
> :
>
> He is talking about screen width/resolution, I guess he seems to
> think that most people now have wide screen monitors or are
> prepared to allow just one application full use of the screen,
> what he seems to be miss understanding is that many will have
> swapped their duel monitor set-ups for a single wide screen
> monitor, thus they will still want two or more applications
> running in the monitor.

I use a 1280x1024 and I rarely maximise a browser. I have a string of 
desktop icons along the top & side for easy access until you go full screen.

-dE|_---

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:38:08 -0000, Krustov  wrote:

>IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .

Go right ahead.  If you care so little about how the viewer uses
his/her browser that you already fix your width at any number, feel
free to use another number.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:47:04 +1100, dorayme
 wrote:


>
>Well, yes, you are right. I know some possible continuations of thought 
>after saying what he said. <g> But what exactly? Who is to dump what?
>
It's part of the modern yoof trend to believe that what is valid for
you in your universe represents all that is valid in all possible
universe.  Or, more accurately the view that ones own universe is all
that exists. 

It's normally mostly encountered in call-centre drones, who do have
some excuse, since for 8 hours a day all that exists in their universe
is presented to them on a screen - not sure of the width, though.

At 16:20:47 on Sat, 28 Feb 2009, me here  wrote in 
:

>It's part of the modern yoof trend

Yoof?  Krusty???
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<dorayme>
<Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:38:55 +1100>


> > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .
> 
> What is this supposed to mean?
> 

It means a cheap laptop with a wireless router is now a more popular 
choice than a fixed location desktop pc .

Keep in mind the average home user isnt a designer/etc and wont have as 
many (if any) utility apps running .

Surfing and email is for the most part the only thing joe public does .

Krusty chuckles at the idiot web designers who think everybody has the 
same usage habits as them :-)


-- 
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk/guestbook_latest_entrys.php

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.241394be69d1b9dc98bd0c@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.net.web.authoring>
> <dorayme>
> <Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:38:55 +1100>
> 
>
>> > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .
>>
>> What is this supposed to mean?
>>
>
> It means a cheap laptop with a wireless router is now a more popular
> choice than a fixed location desktop pc .
>
> Keep in mind the average home user isnt a designer/etc and wont have as
> many (if any) utility apps running .
>
> Surfing and email is for the most part the only thing joe public does .
>
> Krusty chuckles at the idiot web designers who think everybody has the
> same usage habits as them :-)

Do you want a bigger spade?

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:17:25 +0000, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:20:47 on Sat, 28 Feb 2009, me here  wrote in 
>:
>
>>It's part of the modern yoof trend
>
>Yoof?  Krusty???

Ahh, you don't have to BE a yoof ton eed to try to be kewl.

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.241394be69d1b9dc98bd0c@news.newsreader.com...
<snip>
:
: Krusty chuckles at the idiot web designers who think everybody 
has the
: same usage habits as them :-)
:

What's it like laughing at yourself then Krusty?...

In article ,
 Krustov  wrote:

> <uk.net.web.authoring>
> <dorayme>
> <Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:38:55 +1100>
> 
> 
> > > IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .
> > 
> > What is this supposed to mean?
> > 
> 
> It means a cheap laptop with a wireless router is now a more popular 
> choice than a fixed location desktop pc .

Yes, fine. But what is popular is not the whole world of users. Why 
design for a sizeable chunk when you can design for pretty well all? 

Young bull to old bull: "Hey, let's charge down there and screw that 
sexy crumpet of a cow near the tree". 

Old bull: "Nah... let's just walk down slow and screw them all"

-- 
dorayme

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:58:13 +1100, dorayme
 wrote in
:

>Yes, fine. But what is popular is not the whole world of users. Why 
>design for a sizeable chunk when you can design for pretty well all? 

Some people have either insufficient experience to understand the need
or insufficient skill to implement the design of a flexible site.

If you choose to go for popular, I would have thought 480x320 or
1024x600 would be the popular sizes to work with depending on who you
consider your market to be.

I have a neighbour with a 1440x900 monitor who had serious trouble with
a web site at which he wished to spend a lot of money because of screen
width problems - some important fields were cut off and inaccessible (no
scrollbar). Even if you have a reasonably wide screen Windows Vista has
some interesting options that cause some web designers' assumptions to
be utterly inappropriate despite being right at the hardware level.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

In article ,
 Owen Rees  wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:58:13 +1100, dorayme
>  wrote in
> :
> 
> >Yes, fine. But what is popular is not the whole world of users. Why 
> >design for a sizeable chunk when you can design for pretty well all? 
> 
> Some people have either insufficient experience to understand the need
> or insufficient skill to implement the design of a flexible site.
> 
> If you choose to go for popular, I would have thought 480x320 or
> 1024x600 would be the popular sizes to work with depending on who you
> consider your market to be.
>
Well, playing the game of if someone were holding a gun to my head, I 
would go for width 800px and let thinner scroll, I would also try hard 
to make vertical scrolling enable everything to be seen. Which means, no 
pics greater than 800px wide (at the very most). Even a gun would not 
induce me to commit to a height.

Oops, being Sunday and all, I feel a story coming up:

A couple of elderly spinsters were rocking on their chairs on the 
veranda when a cock was seen chasing a hen. The hen fled on to the road 
and was promptly run over. One spinster turned to the other and said, 
"See, quite right, she would rather die"

-- 
dorayme

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24127b9d5f310be798bd0b@news.newsreader.com...
> IMHO the time has now come to dump 1024 and start using 1280 .
>

More bloatware. Brilliant thinking.

You are using the same logic that gave us big feck off apps that hog every 
resource the computer has.

AC